Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Ravikumar on 19 July, 2021
CMA No.881 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CMA No.881 of 2016
and
CMP No.7054 of 2016
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited
Trichy. ... Appellant
versus
Ravikumar ... Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2014 made in
M.C.O.P. No.256 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellant : Mr.Ramanathan
for Mr.D.Venkatachalam
For Respondent : Ms. A.Subadra
for Ms.M.Malar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
CMA No.881 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(Heard Video Conference)
This appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation
challenging the award dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai in MCOP
No.256 of 2005.
2. The appellant / Transport Corporation has filed this appeal
challenging the impugned award on the ground that their bus was not
involved in the alleged accident as the permit for the alleged bus was
only given for the route Titagudi – Ariyalur, whereas the alleged accident
is said to have been taken place at Tiruvannamalai.
3. Heard Mr.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the appellant /
Transport Corporation and Ms.A. Subadra, learned counsel for the
respondent / claimant.
4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant / Transport Corporation has
filed the trip sheet dated 31.08.2003 which was marked as Ex.R1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.881 of 2016
5. As seen from the trip sheet, on the date of the accident, the bus
was plying in the route Titagudi-Ariyalur and therefore, it is not possible
for the bus to have been at Tiruvannamalai, where the alleged accident is
said to have taken place, for which, a claim has been made by the
respondent against the appellant /Transport Corporation for the injuries
sustained by him. The appellant / Transport Corporation has also filed
Ex.R2, dated 31.03.2003 which is the permit for the bus bearing
Registration No.TN-32-N-0949, which the respondent / claimant alleges
that it was involved in the accident which resulted him in sustaining
injuries. This Court has perused and examined the permit Ex.R2.
6. As seen from the permit (Ex.R2), it was given only for the route
Titagudi – Ariyalur, whereas the alleged accident is said to have been
taken place at Tiruvanamalai, which will not fall under the said route. As
seen from the aforementioned documents, Exs.R1 and R2, it is very clear
that on the date of the alleged accident, the bus bearing Registration
No.TN-32-N-0949, was never at Tiruvannamalai and does not have the
permit to ply at Tiruvannamalai and the trip sheet which was marked as
Ex.R1 also discloses that it was plying only in the route Titagudi-
Ariyalur on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has erroneously by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.881 of 2016
total non application of mind to Exs.R1 and R2, viz., the trip sheet and
the permit has mulcted the liability on the appellant / Transport
Corporation despite the fact that the bus bearing No.TN-32-N-0949, was
not involved in the accident, which resulted in the respondent / claimant
sustaining injuries. The Tribunal has rejected the contentions of the
appellant / Transport Corporation only on the ground that the Driver of
the bus was not examined as a witness before the Tribunal. However,
when Exs.R1 and R2 makes it clear that the bus was never present at the
scene of the accident nor was plying in the route passing through
Tiruvannamalai, where the accident is alleged to have taken place, the
Tribunal ought not to have mulcted the liability on the appellant /
Transport Corporation. Clinching evidence has been placed by the
appellant / Transport Corporation in the form of Exs.R1 and R2 before
the Tribunal to prove that their bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-
0949, was not involved in the alleged accident which resulted in the
respondent sustaining injuries and hence this Court is of the considered
view that by total non application of mind to the materials and evidence
available on record, the impugned award has been passed as against the
appellant / Transport Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.881 of 2016
7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned award dated
04.04.2014 passed by the Principal District Judge, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai in MCOP No.256 of 2005 is set aside
and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.07.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section
High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.881 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
CMA No.881 of 2016
19.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
